Background/Objectives: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels often rely on pan-ethnic databases, such as the ACMG Tier 3 panel, but their ability to capture population-specific reproductive risk is uncertain. We characterized pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and at-risk-couple (ARC) probabilities in an underrepresented population from North Macedonia to inform ECS gene prioritization. Methods: NGS data from 1438 subjects of Macedonian, Albanian, and other local ancestry, referred for rare-disease diagnostics, were analyzed across 1795 candidate autosomal recessive/X-linked genes. P/LP variants were compared with gnomAD exomes v2.1.1 non-Finnish European frequencies (Fisher’s exact test). Gene-specific ARC probabilities ranked genes and generated cumulative ARC curves per subgroup. Results: We identified 2007 P/LP variants across 1096 genes. One hundred variants in 89 genes reached an allele frequency ≥ 1/200 in the Macedonian or Albanian subgroups; over one-third were absent from candidate ECS panels, mostly linked to severe or variable phenotypes. ARC saturated rapidly: genes with carrier counts ≥ 1/100 (ACMG Tier 2) accounted for over 85% of total ARC, and with ≥1/200 (ACMG Tier 3) for more than 93%. Total ARC among autosomal recessive panel genes (X-linked genes analyzed separately) was 3.42%, rising to 5.02% in the Albanian subgroup. Excluding top hypomorphic variants reduced ARC by 34–37%, highlighting variant-specific penetrance. The highest-ARC genes diverged between subgroups, with limited overlap with pan-ethnic panels. Conclusions: Population-specific carrier frequencies influence gene prioritization and estimated reproductive-risk probabilities for ECS. Population-tailored ECS panels that incorporate local carrier-frequency data, including embryonic/fetal-lethal genes, and account for hypomorphic alleles to avoid overestimating reproductive risk probabilities could improve the identification of couples at increased reproductive risk, particularly in underrepresented populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noveski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: